User talk:Zencv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hi Zencv, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

  • Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
  • Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

How you can help:

Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The Image:Signature_icon.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
  • If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Otolemur crassicaudatus Good luck, and have fun. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You don't own Wiki to define what constitute Vandalism and what is not based on your needs, is it? I had only included reasoned arguments, if you have any objections, you can discuss about it in the talk page..Reverting quite a lot of revisions without giving any reason constitutes vandalism. Until that time, please consider using sandbox by yourself Zencv (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When you add phrases such as "awards from right-wing groups" without citing a source for your claim, even after you've been asked to cite and still do it, then yeah it's vandalism. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your own definition..Also see hypocrisy

Also see WP:3RR and WP:SOCK. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have..What makes you think that I am a Sock? If you have any arguments against what I wrote, you can bring them in talk page instead of looking into my identity. If you think I am a SOCK, either you can live with that or you can consider complaining to admin. Let him decide.

[edit] Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Islamic Golden Age has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope - there is a detailed explanation in talk page. Mea Culpa for being 2 minutes late to commit talk page changes Suigeneris (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "hah! I never did a 3R. I have discussed the changes in the talk page - please refer ther history"

Decline reason: "3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts - ideally, you should do one revert at most, and then stop until the discussion is over. You continued to revert despite the discussion, hence the block. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "is this a special rule only applicable in certain situations? I was reverting(twice) the reverts by other users- fair world indeed"

Decline reason: "You continued to comit the same edit to the article Fitna (film) over and over without reaching a consensus on the article's talk page to do so. Announcing your intentions on the talk page is not the same thing as gaining the agreement of others. You were clearly edit warring on the article in question, and feeling that you are right does not mean that you get to ignore the basic rules of interaction and collaborative working here at Wikipedia. Since you have not shown any evidence that you intend to stop editing that article contentiously, and abide by the basic rules of Wikipedia, I see no reason to lift this block early. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: " my understanding of basic rules was that, if there are sentences which are pure OR and POV, pushed by biased editors, they can be deleted with an edit summary and/or providing an explanation in the talk page. I am afraid that decision to block me was not objective. And I would be curious to know, why many one of the co-editor User:Kelly who did similar things was not blocked?"

Decline reason: "OR/not OR and POV/not POV are classical exampes of content disputes. Belief that you're right, and other user is not does not give you right to revert without attempting to reach consensus. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Question

Are you the same person as User:Leaveout? Kelly hi! 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not. You are intelligent and seems to have an IQ of 198. Suigeneris (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi,,,m sorry to bother u ...but i got ur message sayin that u reverted my last edit to Kozikode..... but to be honest i didnt find the total point of the paragraph...whereas population of muslims have been mentioned as a whole,,,there is no need to mention population of Dawoodi bohras separately,,,as such statements lead to impressions that Dawoodi bohras are different from rest of the muslims;. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwan Gazi (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Greeting brother,,, thanks a lot for ur reply,,,but I would like to tel you that we muslims among themselves as different from each other be it Sunni or Shia..each belong to the fold of Islam,,and muslims all over the world hav only one cuture that to follow ISlam..and as such there shudnt be any differenciation between its followers...there isnt any diffrence between a Dawoodi mosque and any other mosque.

So i hereby request u to kindly refrain ur self from such things.

Regards

Mr.Gazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridwan Gazi (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Diversity is a fact for all world religions, including Islam - accept it or not. But I will consider your point also and will think of restructuring the sentence. Anyway, People and Religion section of Kozhikode need some rewriting. Suigeneris (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)